1920-1950: Alternative 'little' arms and ammo (4 Viewers)

[tomo pauk]

Time for some guns pr0n, for the ammo and guns of 19mm and under.
The time specified saw the wast amount of resources and time invested in all things military, including the small arms. Americans almost adopted the .276 Pedersen, Italians made more of their 7.3mm idea, French switched from the rimmed 8mm to the rimless 7.5mm, and there was also a number of intermediat cartridges that actually mattered. The 6.5mm ammo saw the upgrade from round-nose to the spitzer bullet, but not everyone took the opportunity, and the 6.5mm all but died off after 6.5mm as a mainstream military cartridge.
Above 10mm, the 12.7-13mm cartridges and weapons were omni-present, while 14.5-15mm were also used, but at the far lowest scale.
Pistol calibers were also diverse, more than it was the case today as far as the military cartridges go.

Infantry eapons went from repeating guns to the semi-automatic and at the end to the fully-automatic weapons.

What might've been the alternatives to these developments, and was there some weapons and/or ammo that warranted a second look? Steal the idea from a friend or a fow? Double down with something that was, in perspective, an advantage? Granted, there will not be the 'one size fits all' to happen, nor everyone will have the resources to diverge a lot from what was made historically, but still.

I'd start out with two, IMO, obvious changes - Italians forget the 7.3mm and 8mm Breda, and go with existing 7.7mm and the spitzer bullet for the 6.5mm. Together with 9mm, that overs all the small arms needed, from rifles to thick-barreled MGs for vehicles. Saves them a lot of money and time, while improving the overall firepower. Of course, make something else instead of the good-awful 6.5mm LMG.

 

[yulzari]

The 7.35mm and 8mm made perfect sense for the Italians. If they had the time to make the changes universal. Effectively it is the Cold War Soviet 7.92mm x39mm and 54mm ammunition choice. Pistols are military trivia but a mass production machine carbine in 9x25mm would be a better choice than the expensive ones IOTL but Italian industry needs fewer choices and has an existing Carcano and Breda production capacity so, rather than an LMG and Maxhine carbine, a single light 7.35mm LMG would have more effect however much the individual soldiers might fancy a nice 9mm machine carbine.

Thus 3 principal small arms. 7.35mm Short Carcano, 7.35mm LMG and 8mm Breda heavy machine gun. They want a pistol? Give them a Carcano and remind them they are soldiers not policemen. They want a machine carbine? Give them a Carcano and tell them all soldiers are infantrymen at heart.

The only open question is what would the 7.35mm LMG be? The obvious choice would be a ZB26 in 7.35mm much as the Chinese did with their captured Bren guns into 7.92x39mm versions but perhaps there is something better suited to Italian industry, shorter and lighter in weight?

However, IOTL war came ahead of schedule and the schedule itself was over optimistic.

 

[tomo pauk]

The 7.35mm and 8mm made perfect sense for the Italians. If they had the time to make the changes universal. Effectively it is the Cold War Soviet 7.92mm x39mm and 54mm ammunition choice. Pistols are military trivia but a mass production machine carbine in 9x25mm would be a better choice than the expensive ones IOTL but Italian industry needs fewer choices and has an existing Carcano and Breda production capacity so, rather than an LMG and Maxhine carbine, a single light 7.35mm LMG would have more effect however much the individual soldiers might fancy a nice 9mm machine carbine.

With a tad of a good will, the 7.7mm is already the 7.62x54R the Russsians had.
Trick with 7.35mm was that it needed to happen in scale that is in millions, and that is just for the weapons. There is no old ammo that can be used during the training, and to help out if the new bullet type is not around, like it was the case with the 6.5mm.
As for the 9x25mm - how good is in a weapon that has no positive locking mechanism, as it was the case with SMGs?

The only open question is what would the 7.35mm LMG be? The obvious choice would be a ZB26 in 7.35mm much as the Chinese did with their captured Bren guns into 7.92x39mm versions but perhaps there is something better suited to Italian industry, shorter and lighter in weight?

Seems like the ZB26 was the ticket.

 

[Shortround6]

Again, figure out what you want the guns/cartridges to do.

between 1920 and early 40s (1941-42?) the was a major shift in Infantry thinking/tactics. This was working in connection to better communication.
In 1920 and holding over from WW I the heavy machinegun was a cornerstone of the Battalion/Regimental firepower. It offered long range fire-power (3-4000 meters) to the Battalion/Regimental commander (didn't need to ask/beg for higher support), assuming the terrain would allow. The introduction of the 3in/81mm mortar changed that. The actual need for long range machinegun fire diminished but it did not happen quickly or rather the actual need vs the perceived need did not change at the same time.
Americans had one of the most powerful 7.6mm cartridges there was. Which meant they saddled themselves with needless powerful rifle cartridge in order to have a powerful machine-gun cartridge.
By the late 30s and very early 40s the 81mm mortar was becoming more widespread. Radios and field phones were more widespread (nothing compared to end of WW II) making accessing artillery support easier which also dimensioned the need for large, heavy tripod mounted machine guns.

Until this time happens (and better supply?) most armies needed general purpose weapons. No using submachine guns only for entire battalions. Great for fighting in cities, a disaster for fighting in open fields or desert.

As far as an "intermediate" cartridge goes the Italian 7.35mm is actually a pretty poor one in many respects. It might have suited the Italians but it's overriding goals seems to have been cheapness. It was able to be made using a lot of existing machinery. Unfortunately, this meant it used pretty much the same cartridge case for about the same cost in materials (Brass and propellent) and need about the same size actions (no savings in manufacture in the guns and no weight gain for the soldiers carrying the guns) and very little change in the weight per 100 rounds for the soldiers or transport vehicles. Roughly 200-250 grams per 100 rounds. Compared to the later Soviet 7.62 x 39 it fired a bullet about 0.5 grams heavier about 30m/s faster while using a full-length cartridge to do so.
I really wonder why the Italians could not use a Spitzer bullet in the 6.5 Carcano and saved themselves a great deal of trouble?

Squad automatics varied bit in the 1920s/1930s. Squad automatics were not always light machine guns although light machine guns and automatic (full auto) rifles crossed over.
There were several deluxe submachine guns offered in 1930s.

To be used by 2 man crews in the squad. Actual effectiveness?
US BAR had tactical problems. Fixed barrel meant it was limited in the amount of suppressive fire it could provide. Due to light weight it had accuracy problems at long range (500 meters and beyond).

To design effective weapons and cartridges we need to identify the actual needs. And figure out what other weapons are available to supplement the weapon/s we are thinking about.

 

[yulzari]

The 9x25 Tokarev/Mauser Export was towards the top end of the practical limit for a simple blowback but proved fine in the millions of mass production PPsh and in minor quality blowback weapons made in Austrian and Hungary.

The use of 9x19 Parabellum descended by inertia from the Parabellum 7.65x19 standard ammunition of the original Lugers. When asked for a 9mm version they removed the neck but it was still the old cartridge in all other ways. When the Bergman MP18 was designed it picked up the Liger's snail drum magazine as it was in stock and in production already. Thus machine carbines followed that lead and column magazines were also made for the 9x19mm. When the British copied an MP28 to make their own Lanchester machine carbine it copied MP28 magazines so were also in 9x19mm. The Sten used Lanchester magazines because they already existed. So we see that the typical choice of 9x19mm Parabellum was not a ballistics choice but industrial inertia combined with its popularity for semi automatic hand guns. Those handguns had a delay or locking breechloading due to inadequate mass in their working parts to cope with simple blowback systems but machine carbines could carry enough mass in their breech blocks. There is a practical limit to the mass of the breechblock at which it becomes too large or is too heavy for the soldier. 9x25mm is below that limit. Literally millions of soldiers had no issue using 9x25mm Tokarev so it is a perfectly viable blowback choice for a machine carbine and, at section infantry ranges with a bipod and sights, can even provide automatic support fire in an infantry section. Not out to LMG ranges but within the ranges of a 7.35mm Carcano's fixed sights ie 200metres.

There is an argument for dropping the Carcano and giving the rifleman a 9x25mm machine carbine but there are both production lines and ammunition manufacturing already for Carcanos and the 7.35mm calibre was chosen to allow for existing 6.5mm barrels to be bored out and used as 7.35mm barrels. Sticking with the Carcano removes the extra ammunition supply need and the Italians would only have two types of small arms ammunition, 7.35mm and 8mm. It is an Italian answer to the question. Other nations have different industrial and logistics needs and capabilities and may make a different set of choices for different reasons. One has only to think of the early Chinese Communist People's Liberation Army logistics, weapons and ammunition production and supply and shudder.

 

[tomo pauk]

Again, figure out what you want the guns/cartridges to do.

between 1920 and early 40s (1941-42?) the was a major shift in Infantry thinking/tactics. This was working in connection to better communication.
In 1920 and holding over from WW I the heavy machinegun was a cornerstone of the Battalion/Regimental firepower. It offered long range fire-power (3-4000 meters) to the Battalion/Regimental commander (didn't need to ask/beg for higher support), assuming the terrain would allow. The introduction of the 3in/81mm mortar changed that. The actual need for long range machinegun fire diminished but it did not happen quickly or rather the actual need vs the perceived need did not change at the same time.
Americans had one of the most powerful 7.6mm cartridges there was. Which meant they saddled themselves with needless powerful rifle cartridge in order to have a powerful machine-gun cartridge.
By the late 30s and very early 40s the 81mm mortar was becoming more widespread. Radios and field phones were more widespread (nothing compared to end of WW II) making accessing artillery support easier which also dimensioned the need for large, heavy tripod mounted machine guns.

Until this time happens (and better supply?) most armies needed general purpose weapons. No using submachine guns only for entire battalions. Great for fighting in cities, a disaster for fighting in open fields or desert.

As far as an "intermediate" cartridge goes the Italian 7.35mm is actually a pretty poor one in many respects. It might have suited the Italians but it's overriding goals seems to have been cheapness. It was able to be made using a lot of existing machinery. Unfortunately, this meant it used pretty much the same cartridge case for about the same cost in materials (Brass and propellent) and need about the same size actions (no savings in manufacture in the guns and no weight gain for the soldiers carrying the guns) and very little change in the weight per 100 rounds for the soldiers or transport vehicles. Roughly 200-250 grams per 100 rounds. Compared to the later Soviet 7.62 x 39 it fired a bullet about 0.5 grams heavier about 30m/s faster while using a full-length cartridge to do so.
I really wonder why the Italians could not use a Spitzer bullet in the 6.5 Carcano and saved themselves a great deal of trouble?

Excellent points.
Part of the infantry regimental firepower in some big and small armies was also the infantry gun. It was supposed to tackle the targets the HMG is hopeless against, and also the targets the mortar cannot easily hit, like the windows, doors and moving vehicles (not necesarily tanks).

US BAR had tactical problems. Fixed barrel meant it was limited in the amount of suppressive fire it could provide. Due to light weight it had accuracy problems at long range (500 meters and beyond).

BAR that fires the .276 would've been a bit lighter, more easily controllable, and will heat the barrel less than ot was the case historically. Add the bipod and, issue two per 10-12 men team/squad and there is lot of firepower?
Similar with the Johnson LMG - the lower powered cartridge will mean the very light wepon kicks less; granted, there is really no need for the fancy magazine - a 'normal' mag will do just fine.
The .276 will also allow for more rounds to be carried, both in the boxes/mags and in the weapons.

For both British and USA, a 'short .30' round might've also been an interesting alternative. Sorta the Czech 7.62x45?

 

[tomo pauk]

The 9x25 Tokarev/Mauser Export was towards the top end of the practical limit for a simple blowback but proved fine in the millions of mass production PPsh and in minor quality blowback weapons made in Austrian and Hungary.

I'm not sure the 9x25 Tokarev was a thing.

 

[Shortround6]

here is an argument for dropping the Carcano and giving the rifleman a 9x25mm machine carbine

Not a good one.
Italians had worked with the Villar Perosa 9mm guns in WW II for infantry, fortification and aircraft use. In some circumstances they were quite useful, in other uses not so much.
Italians were trying to use them as substitute MGs due to production shortages. Ammo consumption was high, in part due to very high cycle rate which was fixable. They also often used it with a 4 man team, one man with the gun and three ammo carriers with up to 5,000 rounds(?). A very useful set up for close range. long range gets a lot iffier. The sights could be set to 5 positions from 100 meters to 500 meters but the longer ranges were pretty much wishful thinking. Plenty of 9mm pistols, especially with shoulder stocks, had even more optimistic sights.
Italy was, during the 20s and early 30s, thinking about alpine fighting and not North Africa. Not sure what the lessons of the Spanish civil war were for infantry but the Italians had one of the better 9mm submachine guns of WW II. Changing to a 9x23 or 9x25 cartridge was only going to extend useful range by 25-50 meters. And only then if they used a 2 or 3 position back sight.

And if you want to use a 9X25 machine carbine you darn well better replace the Breda 30 with something else (anything else?).

And here is the main problem. While the vast majority of rifle/carbine use was under 200 meters, about 50% of the machine gun use was at over 400 meters. If you cheap out on the rifles/carbines you better have lots of LMGs and good ones, even if you forget about using the LMGs at or over 700-800 meters.
And you have to provide ammo for the machine carbines.
In the 1920s and 30s the riflemen were often seen as ammo carriers for the LMG. One or more riflemen could use rifle ammo to refill the machine gun magazines or belts, how practical this was is certainly subject to question. How much ammo did most riflemen have? Being close enough to the gun to catch a thrown magazine and throw it back? LMG could empty a 20 round box, even firing in bursts, faster than it could be filled by rifleman trying to pull ammo out of standard rifle clips.

 

[tomo pauk]

The 9mm Para is an European, if not the world standard for some 100 years for good reasons.
In a SMG, it will provide the useful range of 200m, the recoil can be made manageable without using fancy stuff that hampers the mass production, and the SMGs can be made cheap and fast. Croatia had no waepons industry before 1991, the 1st thing that was made on (small) series were the SMGs in 9mm so we can fight a war with stuff better than the side-a-side shotguns; the examples of Sten and Owen SMG are more known.
In a pistol, again the controlability and accuracy is there for a decent shooter, pistol can be made with double stack mag without the gun being awkward to handle, and the pistol is not too big nor heavy.

Cartridge that is as long and as powerful as the 9x25 will require heavier SMG, that will be more expensive and slower to make, while perhaps not offering any meaningful increse in effective range. It will require a larger grip size on a pistol, and the dual stack mag pistol will be more awkward yet. Weight and price will also go up.

To move from this 9mm ... thing - the HMGs. The British going HMG was discussed as nauseam her and on the other places, so I'd suggest that France and Germany would've benefitted from a good, powerful and belt-fed HMG. French were alsmost there with the 13.2mm weapon, but the development unfortunately almost stalled between the wars. Germany - a HMG firing the rimless or semi-rimmed powerful 13mm (instead of the sedate 13mm on the MG 131) would've been a greater asset to have on the bombers' defensive positions than the stuff they have for almost half of the war.

 

[yulzari]

I had said that there was a case for the 7.62x25mm not that I was advocating it. I would go the 7.35x52mm Carcano for both riflemen and LMG with the 8x59mm Breda as an HMG. What it needs is time to set it all in place.

 

[ThomasP]

Does anyone have information on the average or the majority of distances for infantry rifle fire during WWI?

I have run across studies from WWII that discuss this, but not from WWI.

I do not remember what the specific ranges in the US studies from WWII were at the moment, but in general (in the ETO) the US found that over 90% of their infantry combat was in urban built-up areas. I figure this would be true for the other western front ETO combatants as well, but I could be wrong.

Does anyone have information specific to the British, Germans, Italians, Japanese, Soviets, etc?

 

[yulzari]

I'm not sure the 9x25 Tokarev was a thing.

Finger trouble.Apologies.

 

[Shortround6]

Does anyone have information on the average or the majority of distances for infantry rifle fire during WWI?

I have run across studies from WWII that discuss this, but not from WWI.

I haven't seen anything either not saying they don't exist.

I do not remember what the specific ranges in the US studies from WWII were at the moment, but in general (in the ETO) the US found that over 90% of their infantry combat was in urban built-up areas. I figure this would be true for the other western front ETO combatants as well, but I could be wrong.

You may not be wrong.

We can use the retrospectroscope to say what some armies could have done differently but most armies tend very strongly to equipe themselves to fight the last war.
British spent much of 1900-1913 trying to equipe themselves to refight the Boer war.
WW I was often considered to be an aberration considering the previous 300 years of war. Culling the useful information was hard. Most (all?) armies desired to go back to more open warfare with greater movement. How that was to be done was a big question.
Weapons of under 20mm could be important but larger weapons offered greater change.
Machine pistols were great for trench clearing, not so good for getting to the trenches. 7.7-8mm rifles with proper bullets could stop WW I tanks (with luck). Lower powered rifle rounds were going to have trouble not only with tanks but in penetrating barriers.
How much barrier penetration were some armies willing to give up?
This was important to just about all armies.
It is not just can a rifle man hit another soldier at 500 meter or more, it is can 7-10 riflemen hit several artillery men at 500-1000 meters. That is why just about all field guns and AT guns had shields and they were not after thoughts. The thickness, material and slope was carefully considered to provide protection at over certain distances and paid for by the weight of shield and the difficulty of towing, transporting, manhandling. Having 7-10 riflemen firing at 6-10 men clustered around a field gun is a very different situation than having one man firing at another man.
In the 1920s and early 30s the Rifle and machine gun were the only weapons the infantry squad/platoon/company and at times battalion had to project "power" 500-1500 meters into the area of the enemy. No radios to call for support, certainly no aircraft. Mortars were just starting to show up. British thought at 2 mortars (and crappy ones at that) were sufficient for an entire Battalion into 1940. Smaller mortars, 37-60mm were much more common. Remember that until late 1939 ALL armies walked. Battalion support weapons were often towed by the few trucks available or towed by horses/mules or carried in carts pulled by men or carried on men's backs.
What was done in 1943 on (Tunisia, Sicily, Italy and France) was totally different.

Germans did very well up until mid/late 1942 or 1943 with bolt action rifles, a single 7.9mm mg per squad and a single 9mm machine pistol per squad.
BUT they often had very good fire support and even air support at times while their opponents did not.
What the US needed after Operation Torch was very different from that they thought they needed several years earlier. Germans were amazed at the American artillery support.
Logistics and radios allowed American tactics to use artillery to take over the long-range fire role in areas where long range rifle fire was possible. Use of smoke in daytime and illuminating rounds at night also changed the roles of the infantry weapons.

Tanks also became infantry support weapons and instead of the infantry trying to shoot their own way up a hill in farmland, the infantry followed the tanks which shot up the hill and accompanying infantry used their weapons to suppress/eliminate enemy AT threats (small AT guns or AT squads. More machine carbines or large capacity automatic rifles being more useful than long range rifles.
Many countries faced very different threats like Japan vs China, what was a better weapon or better weapon mix for the Japanese in 1935 or 1940?

For weapons in 12.7mm and up range logistics gets very important. How does army X move the proposed weapon and how much ammo is traveling with it?
If there is no motor transport and animals are scarce how much gun can you move?
Using the Japanese 20mm AT gun as an illustration.

50kg unloaded. 5-7 men? most with their own rifles and backpacks for food and blankets.
Scale down for smaller caliber weapons. Larger than 12.7-13.2mm machine guns needs motor transport or lots of horses.
In July 1941 the US Army was figuring that one 1/2 ton truck could carry 3000 rounds of .50 cal ammo or 12,500 rounds of belted .30 cal ammo.
Or 100 rounds of 81mm mortar or 270 rounds of 60mm mortar.

 

[Shortround6]

There were a number of higher powered 9mm rounds of about 9 x 23. Some were interchangeable. There were also improvements in propellent between 19000-1908 and 1935-1940.
There were "hot" 9x19 submachine gun rounds in some armies. Often with black tipped bullets to try to prevent use in pistols. Extra distance of effectiveness would be measured in tens of meters not even scores of meters. A "hot" 9mm is roughly 1/2 the power of the US .30 cal carbine and roughly 1/4 the power of the Soviet 7.62x39.
A bit more power would be useful but not game changing and using even "hot" 9mm or 7.62 Tokarev is not going to substitute for higher power cartridge (high being 7.62x39).

The American .30-06 of 1906 was rated at going though 1/4in low grade steel out to 400yds.
At 200yds penetration tests claimed 32in in solid oak. 25.72in in Yellow Pine board and 2 to 8 inches in a number of other materials. Other countries may have had different requirements or goals.
Powerful guns may have uses in urban fighting?

Going to mid powered cartridges may mean issuing/supplying proportionally more support weapons. Mortars, Heavy machine guns, infantry guns (45-76mm guns?) and/or better artillery support.

 

[tomo pauk]

The American .30-06 of 1906 was rated at going though 1/4in low grade steel out to 400yds.
At 200yds penetration tests claimed 32in in solid oak. 25.72in in Yellow Pine board and 2 to 8 inches in a number of other materials. Other countries may have had different requirements or goals.
Powerful guns may have uses in urban fighting?

Most of the houses made in the European countries, bar sometimes in Scandinavia and Russia, were made from full brick, or stone if you're close to the Med (or the investor has money to spend). A light anti-tank gun might be able to push an AP shot though half a meter thick brick wall, while a rifle cartridge will just dent the facade. Recall 'Saving private Ryan', or the siege of Vukovar.
LMGs aside, a gun being powerful mostly meant it was a repeating weapon, or semi-automatic if you're lucky. A weapon designed around a less powerful cartridge or a pistol cartridge will likely be fully automatic, and handier than a proper rifle. A soldier will also be carrying much more ammo.

 

[Shortround6]

Very true but the full power rifles can handle trees, wooden fences and some wooden out-buildings better.

What I keep saying is that shifting to less powerful shoulder weapons/cartridges has to be done as part of plan.

And tactics/weapons were changing a lot from 1914 though the late 30s or 1940-41.
In 1914 an Infantry battalion was expected to be able to fight at a range of over 1000 meters. The expectation may have been un-realistic, but it was there.
In 1914 the Battalion commander had 2-4 machine guns, rifles, bayonets and.......................no mortars, no hand grenades (except special units), no sub machine guns and no pistols except officers and senior non-coms. EVERY battlefield task at any range out to and exceeding 1000 meters had to be handled with the rifles, The Machine guns were a late addition.
Massed rifle fire was expected to at least disrupt enemy formations at long range.
Massed rifle fire forced the change in artillery tactics before WW I and in 1914. Pre-war ideas of field guns being wheeled onto the battle ground and using rapid fire 75mm guns firing 12-25 shrapnel shells per minute and deciding the battle went away very quicky. Sheilds on the guns helped but several hundred rifle men firing at every field gun could cause enough casualties to significantly reduce the rate of fire. Artillery units started opening fire at well over 1000 meters or even better, out of sight of the pesky riflemen.
Remember that in 1914-1918 ALL battlefield communications were sound (bugle? verbal message) or sight (waving flag or written note) Trying to control an urban battle was almost a lost cause. Field phones and radios of WW II allowed commanders to actually have some idea of what was going on block by block. Commanders did not like battles in wooded areas because of the poor communications and lack of both intelligence (where was the enemy) and command.
Commanders before WW I liked open battlefields where they could see what was going on. But the rifles and machine guns (and rapid fire field guns) had made such open warefare much too dangerous.

By the end of WW I after 4 years, they had added grenades, both hand and rifle. Mortars had been added to some units. Submachine guns had started to show up. LMGs had shown up but the scale of issue was often only one per platoon. Scale of heavy (tripod?) machine guns was around 6 guns per battalion or more.
Problem with an infantry battalion was that the heavy weapons required transport. You can back-pack Maxim or Vickers guns if you have to, but you need a lot of men. Three to four men can carry the gun but then you need more men to carry the gun crews back-packs and food and you need a crap load of men to carry the ammo or what is point of lugging the guns around? 6-12,000 rounds per gun depending on a particular army's doctrine. Amount of ammo per LMG ??? and not just carried by the crew but in the company or battalion ammunition train/transport.
Battalion's firepower was shifting from the rifle to machine gun, both heavy and light. Light mortars in 50mm range were back-packable, ammo supply gets hard if a lot of rounds are desired. Bipod LMGs were considered to have effect ranges of 500-800meters although often given sights of much greater range.

Now we are back to often discussed question of should the LMG use the standard rifle round for logistic reasons? Not just for manufacture but in the foot squad/platoon should the riflemen be able to supply the machine gun/s of the squad/platoon or not? or could the Machine gun ammo be divided amongst the riflemen?

Again, talking about the mid 1930s when very few armies had much motor transport in the infantry battalions. The Battalion commander had a lot more tools to use, he also had to handle a bigger supply train to handle the hungrier weapons, and he needed to figure out how to deploy the different weapons to best advantage, like mortars behind cover?

There was a reason that Germany infantry divisions (and other armies) had hundreds of wagons and many hundreds of horses in 1930s. The troops could not carry the ammo needed for even a few minutes of intensive fire for long marches on foot.

For the intermediate cartridge fans where does the intermediate cartridge and full power cartridge split off? Is there a full power MG in each squad? or perhaps 2 per platoon? or 2-4 at company level? It is quite possible to make intermediate cartridge machine guns and since WW II (or at least the 1950s) somewhere around 20 of them (more?) have been designed and built. Number actually sold/adopted is a lot smaller. I don't believe any army gave up on the full power machine guns entirely.